Main menu

Post navigation

Hi. my name is MELF and I’m pro-gun and pro-gun control. Let’s discuss…

Since I’m a “leftist-peace-loving-liberal-socialist-commie hippie” who is also pro-gun…I often get asked by my more conservative friends my opinion on the gun debate. I’m going to weigh in on my blog. And I welcome any discussion (here or on Facebook) as long as there is no name-calling and bashing of beliefs. I won’t tolerate it here. This is my little living room on the web and I would love to have a discussion, but it better be respectful.

I’m going to start this discussion by dispelling a rumor. There is NO evidence that Hitler said this and I’m sick to death of seeing this kind of propaganda floating all over the web. All this does is instill fear and loathing to the under-educated and misinformed.

What did Hitler actually do when he was in power? He loosened the gun laws for non-Jewish Germans with the 1938 German Weapons Act. At best, this quote is a made-up load of hogwash, pasted next to Adolf’s face to instill passion and fear. At worst, it’s paraphrased and taken way out of context to instill passion and fear. The very definition of Propaganda is the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. We, as Americans, are better than these tactics.

Here are some questions/statements that I’m constantly being asked to answer as a leftie…(these answers are mine and mine alone and do not represent the opinions of all my leftie friends.)

1. How can you be for “gun control” and be pro-gun? The 2nd amendment gives us the freedom and the right to bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment states: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. Even the founding fathers believed in regulations. If the American government gets “too big” are you going to form your own army attack the White House? I think that’s such a cop-out argument. We are so much more civilized than in colonial times. We are not a Theocracy or Dictatorship. We stop the government from getting “too big” by civilized methods as a MAJORITY, not as angry villagers chasing the Frankenstein Monster away because they feel threatened.

Look at the number of mass shootings from 1982-2012. The assault-weapons ban existed for 10 years…1994-2004. During that time there were 246 people injured or killed by spree shooters.When the ban was lifted, from 2005-2012 there were 448 people injured or killed by spree shooters.Those numbers are why I believe we need stricter regulations on all guns, and that military-grade weaponry belong to military and law enforcement only.

2. But my freedoms are being limited if you limit high-capacity mags.

I believe the right to bear arms does not mean military-grade weapons and I believe if the forefathers could see the future of weaponry, the amendment would read a little differently. If you’re going to be in a well-regulated militia, then fine, register your hicap mags and go. I believe all guns should be registered when purchased. I also think there should be gun insurance. And if you’re going to have military-grade weapons, you should be willing to purchase the insurance to cover any incidents caused by your weapon. We regulate booze. We regulate cars. If someone drinks and drives, they get severely fined. Their insurance rates increase or they lose their driving privileges all together. They go to jail if they kill someone. Stricter regulations may not be THE answer, but I do believe it is a start.

3. Bad guys are always going to find a way. Why should I give up my freedom as a law-abiding citizen because of the sins of few?

Good grief. This isn’t giving up a freedom, it’s regulating something so we can continue to exercise our freedom safely. No individual NEEDS a high-cap mag weapon…unless they’re hunting humans. Sure they’re fun to shoot. I mean, hell yeah! what a rush! However, I don’t want that shit in my house and nobody else should, either. I think weed should be legal and regulated and taxed. The same goes for prostitution. And why not high-mag weapons? Or all guns for that matter? Let’s require registration and insurance. Let’s require mandatory background checks. Let’s make sure that someone who has had mental stability issues can’t get a hold of a gun legally. Did you know that the weapons used in both the Sikh Temple shooting and the Aurora movie theater shootings would have been illegal to purchase during the assault weapons ban? Could the shooters still have obtained those weapons illegally? Probably. However, it would have been much more difficult. And who knows, maybe if the ban were still in place, those shootings wouldn’t have happened. Or maybe there would have been fewer injured or killed. And THAT is something I think we should all want.

I take exception to the “law abiding citizen being punished for the sins of few” argument. All laws are based on the sins of few. Are child molesters in the majority? Rapists? Laws and regulations are in place to help us punish those who step outside the box of the law. And there are enough incidences with hi-mag weapons (and other weapons) that I think we’re to the point that we need stricter regs. Marrying a 14 year old used to be okay. It used to be if a rapist married his victim, then the rape didn’t happen. Women couldn’t vote once upon a time… I think gun laws can evolve to our current level of civility. 4. You don’t need your wine anymore than I need my hi-cap mags.I would argue I need my wine..haha. Okay, fine. I don’t NEED my wine. However, my wine isn’t going to put a bullet or 20 into the head of an innocent victim. And my wine is regulated and taxed. If we had stricter regulations and punishments on guns when kids accidentally shoot the wall or their brother or take grandpa’s gun to school…LIKE we do if a kid drinks a parent’s booze and steals a car, or steals the booze and gives it to their friends, then we would see a significant drop in these issues.5. You have to be 21 and a non-felon to own a gun.

Yes. Unless you buy it from a gun show or a private citizen. Then it’s don’t ask, don’t tell. If I buy my kid booze, I get in big trouble for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. If you buy a gun from a private citizen and pay cash, no background check is done, no insurance or registration is required and it’s like that sale never happened.

We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford

Jimmy Carter

Ronald Reagan

Okay gang. I’m done for now. Heh. Just remember, if you decide to engage in a discussion, please be respectful of others. Nobody is right or wrong. It’s just opinion and this is not a black and white topic…

3 thoughts on “Hi. my name is MELF and I’m pro-gun and pro-gun control. Let’s discuss…”

Hi Melissa – Chuck Bussell, Bryant High class of 85.I'd like to make a few comments on your comments. As a precursor — please define "Military Grade Weapons?" You use that term several times — but actual military grade weapons are not available to the public. If you mean "assault weapons" — those are really FAR from military. All the features that make them "assault weapons" are purely consmetic.1) "Well-Regulated" — in 1776- this wasn't referring to laws – it was "well trained". The citizen army was a big part of the national defense. And, you don't have to raise an army to keep the govermnent in check. 80 million gun owners and the knowledge that a large proportion of the military would NEVER fire on civilians is probably enough.Can you elaborate — how many of those spree shooters used assault weapons — since the AWB seems to be what you are crediting the differences in numbers.2) Please see this story as an example of the need FOR high capacity mags. Unlike movies — a single shot RARELY stops a person. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257966/Paul-Ali-Slater-Intruder-shot-times-face-neck-cornering-mother-kids-attic.htmlAs far as registering and insurance — you mention car regulations. We register our cars because they are going to be driven on publicly funded roads — and part of the registration goes to fund those roads. That's just the beginning of the list that make a car registration an incompatible comparison. All my firearms are covered under my home owners insurance. If I "drink and carry" – I will have my weapons confiscated and will be severely fined — and lose my priveleges to carry. If I kill someone with my firearm — and it isn't self defense — I go to jail – just like your car argument.3) Please refer to my link above on why your statement that "No individual NEEDS a high cap mag weapon" is simply your view — and not necessarilly the reality. The mother in the news story placed 5 shots into the assailants face and neck — and yet he still was able to get in his car and drive away. Please step back and look at your statement on "no one else should either". I don't want lace doilies in my house – does that mean somebody else shouldn't? I want high capacity mags, I have a family to protect. I never expect to have to use a single bullet in my defense — but if I ever do, I want the best chance possible to protect them."make sure that … mental stability issues can't get a hold of a gun legally" — where can they? Every weapon purchase I have ever made would have been illegal if I had a history of mental illness. As far as the Temple and Movie theatre shootings – these are actually in the minority. Most spree shootings don't involve assault style weapons. BTW — Do you realize that those shootings — as well as every other spree shooting, takes place where legal carrying of a weapon is prohibited? That particular movie theater was the only one in town with a owner enforced ban on concealed carry.Child molestors and rapists? What laws have we passed that infringe on non-child molestors and non-rapists? We pass laws against child molestation and rape — and then punish those that break those laws. We currently have laws against murder.4) I don't understand the argument. What regulations and punishments? And — btw — love my wine — but it is no more taxed or regulated than my firearms. They don't register my wine. I have restrictions placed upon me to buy it (21) — same with my guns.5) Gun show — NOT TRUE — dealers at gun shows are required to follow all procedures. The "gun show loophole" is really a non-issue. According to a 1980s study by the National Institute of Justice detrmined that criminals purchased firearms at gun shows so rarely, that those purchases were not worth reporting as a separate category.

Hi, Chuck! Welcome to my little space on the web.I'll be honest, I was trying to avoid the term assault weapons because that phrase is an oxymoron. Any weapon can be an assault weapon. In general, I'm talking about hi-capacity mag weapons. I realize that my use of military grade was incorrect, but to the lay-person and general gun-owner of the "non-enthusiast" variety, I felt like I was making my point in a way that was easily understood. I was using military-grade instead of military-style and that was my mistake.1. So if Well-Regulated refers to well-trained, then my point still stands. Let's make training a requirement prior to gun-ownership. Let's make sure they have a permit for a year or 2 before they're licensed. I'm okay with that. This will keep the honest, law-abiding citizen safer in the long run because they'll be properly trained.I haven't done the research to see how many of the spree shooters used assault weapons. It is on my list of things to do, though. However, I believe having stricter regulations, requiring training and licensing and insurance on all legally-purchased guns would dramatically reduce the number of deaths/injuries due to spree shootings. "The citizen army was a big part of the national defense. And, you don't have to raise an army to keep the govermnent in check. 80 million gun owners and the knowledge that a large proportion of the military would NEVER fire on civilians is probably enough."We no longer have a citizen army because we no longer have a need. As I said, we are more civilized than that now. And I'm sorry, but if the military is ordered to fire on civilians, they're going to. It's their job…whether there are 80 million gun owners or not. The point is, that's not going to happen because we're more civilized now. The government isn't going to fire on its own people because we are a democracy, not a Theocracy; not a Dictatorship.2. I've read that story before, and good for her for taking the intruder down. However, she used a .38 Revolver, not a semi-automatic handgun. So for the purpose of this discussion, that kind of makes my point. I used 'cars' as a comparison because that is the example I'm given 90% of the time. ""assault beverages" and their high-capacity containers kill or injure thousands every year, but no one is seeking to outright ban them or tell you how much you can drink" or "many more people are killed by dwi accidents than high capacity magazines." ""No individual NEEDS a high cap mag weapon" is simply your view — and not necessarilly the reality. The mother in the news story placed 5 shots into the assailants face and neck — and yet he still was able to get in his car and drive away. " Yes, it is my view. My opinion. I stated very clearly that nobody's opinion is right or wrong because this isn't a black and white subject…however, the lady in your story obviously didn't "need" a high-cap mag either. She took him down like a boss, with a .38 Revolver. "Please step back and look at your statement on "no one else should either". I don't want lace doilies in my house – does that mean somebody else shouldn't?"I don't want lace doilies either. Heh. You're right. That didn't belong in this blog. I understand that you WANT high-cap mags, but you don't NEED them for protection. And if we're not going to ban them, then we should make sure they are registered, regulated and insured. I don't know if that is THE answer, but it is definitely something worth discussing. That way, all law-abiding gun owners are protected. [cont.]

[cont]"Do you realize that those shootings — as well as every other spree shooting, takes place where legal carrying of a weapon is prohibited? That particular movie theater was the only one in town with a owner enforced ban on concealed carry."I hate this excuse. Why would anyone go to a place of peace and worship (such as the temple) with a gun? And what difference does it make if the theater had a sign that banned concealed weapons? I guarantee you that there was someone in that building carrying concealed. My friends who carry concealed, carry it wherever they want whether there is a sign on the door or not. "1994: Former airman Dean Allen Mellberg, 20, opened fire inside a hospital at the Fairchild Air Force Base before he was shot dead by a military police officer outside. Total injured and killed: 28" 2004 "Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, opened fire on an Army base in an attack linked to Islamist extremism. Hasan was injured during the attack and later arrested. Total injured and killed: 43"Weapons are allowed on military bases. That didn't stop the rampages.2004 "Maurice Clemmons, 37, a felon who was out on bail for child-rape charges, entered a coffee shop on a Sunday morning and shot four police officers who had gone there to use their laptops before their shifts. Clemmons, who was wounded fleeing the scene, was later shot dead by a police officer in Seattle after a two-day manhunt. Total injured and killed: 5"4 cops…armed…shot dead. 2011 "Jared Loughner, 22, opened fire outside a Safeway during a constituent meeting with Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) before he was subdued by bystanders and arrested. Total injured and killed: 19 There were armed officers here…he still killed 19.My point about the rapists, child molesters, et al is, that as we as a country grow more civilized, we adapt our existing laws to show our growth. Again I compared the wine to the high-cap mags because that is the question I'm always asked. They used to prohibit booze, now they regulate and tax it. You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on the Gun Show dealers and background checks. I have friends who are gun dealers, they go to gun shows specifically because they are not required to follow the same procedures as a 'private sale' that they are when they sell the weapon through their store. And a study from the 80s is not really relevant today, considering the increase in gun ownership. Thanks for stopping by and for offering your opinion on the matter. I do appreciate it!